86 D.J. Stobbelaar et al. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 77 2000 79–93
Fig. 6. Flower rich meadow at farm ‘1’. This meadow is part of the ecological infrastructure of farm ‘1’.
Now two families live from the farm and also a next generation coming up may live from the farm.
The farm has some rocky outcrops and flowers rich meadows Fig. 6 that serve as part of an ecological in-
frastructure Vereijken et al., 1995. Other more natu- ral parts are meadows on the steeper parts, the cliff and
the rows of trees planted through the olive groves. One of the rows of Cypresses is a former boundary
of the farm, which says something about the admin- istrative history of the farm, but has no real connec-
tion with the natural underground, so it does not show vertical landscape coherence. The scattered planting
of a few fruit trees between the olive yards did not re- sult in a distinctive landscape element that reflects the
natural or cultural history see Kuiper, 2000.
2.5.2. Farm ‘2’ Farm ‘2’ has 11 ha of land. It is scattered through
the area Fig. 1. The research group has visited two parcels of this farm, one situated in the hills with high
stem olive trees Fig. 4, from now on called plot II, one situated in the planes, with low stem trees Fig. 5,
from now on called plot III. Plot II consists of only one landscape element, namely the grove with herbs
in the undergrowth. Plot III consists of the grove, a ditch and a surrounding row of native fruit trees and
shrubs. The natural grasses and herbs in the under- growth were already mown when we visited the plot.
They were not so colourful as the herbs in the moun- tains, probably owing to a much more fertile soil in
the floodplain. The herbs and trees were introduced by the organic farmers in accordance the ecological in-
frastructure management method Kabourakis, 1996. They can function as ecological reservoirs for preda-
tors, to preserve the soil and to improve the ecological quality of the area.
3. Results
3.1. The quality of the abiotic environment In Table 1 an overview is given of the scores on
the abiotic realm of the three plots. On all three plots the ecological olive production system Kabourakis,
1996 is being used. As described in Section 2.1, the agricultural landscape of Crete has become more and
more monotonous over the past decades. The ecologi- cal olive production system tries to stop this trend.
Although, the environmental situation of plot II and III is a little better than on plot I, this is not elaborated in
the ecology of the farm. This might be a management effect, but is certainly a result of the larger surface
reserved for semi-natural elements on plot I.
3.2. The quality of the social environment The hill plot and valley plot are part of one economic
unit, and because of that treated together here. 3.2.1. Economic factors
The organic farmers on the island may make good profit from their work. The number of farmers mem-
bers of organic farmers of Messara — is increasing, as a sign that conventional production faces increas-
ing agronomic problems while organic olive produc- tion pays off. However, this is mainly due to the suc-
cess of the EOPS project initially at agronomic level, and later at management and economic level. Other
important factors are the increasing problems of con- ventional production, and the increased awareness of
the farmers of the effect of conventional farming on health and environment.
The productivity of the organic farmers kilogram’s per hectare is almost as high as conventional, which
means that the gross revenue per hectare counted in Drachmas is higher. Besides, the premium prices of
olive oil overwrite the extra costs rising from addi-
D.J. Stobbelaar et al. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 77 2000 79–93 87
Table 1 Abiotic scoring of the researched plots
Parameters I Farm ‘1’
II Hill plot of farm ‘2’ III Valley plot of farm ‘2’
1. Environment 1.1 Clean environment
1.1.1 Soil conservation erosion due to neglect of terraces
and lack of trees on uncultivated slope −
no problems, although it is undu- lating ++
even on flat soil conservation practise was applied ++
1.1.2 Clean water EOPS nutrient management 0
EOPS nutrient management ++ EOPS nutrient management +
1.1.3 Air quality no spraying 0
no spraying 0 no spaying 0
1.1.4 Wildfire control two uncontrolled fires over the
last time − no fire problems +
no fire problems + 1.2 Foodfibre efficiency
and quality high quality ecological food pro-
duction, well balanced between nature and food production ++
high quality ecological food pro- duction, less balanced between
nature and food production + high quality ecological food pro-
duction, least balanced between nature and food production +
1.3 Carrying capacity EOPS ecological management
practises 0 EOPS ecological management
practise; high organic matter con- tent +
EOPS ecological management practise; good annualpoly annual
crop area ++ 1.4 Resource efficiency:
input–output balance good nutrient balance ++
reasonable nutrient balance + 1.5 Side adapted produc-
tion system no production on steep or rocky
areas; local varieties and special- ities ++
olive grooves in hilly area, local varieties +
olives grove on very fertile soil, international varieties −
2. Ecology 2.1 Biodiversity
2.1.1 Species with mini- mal population
rare species in orchard orchids ++
sown herbs and common wild herb species +
very common species nutrient rich plot −
2.1.2 Biotopes with mini- mal area
semi-natural habitats: rocky out- crops and flower rich meadows
+ no biotopes except the fields itself
− no biotopes except the fields itself
− 2.1.3 Ecosystems with
minimal complexity and function
high age stability, quality and quantity of biotopes and species
+ high age stability of the biotope
− low age stability, quality and
quantity of biotopes and species −
2.2 Ecological coherence 2.2.1 On site
biotopes express the natural cir- cumstances of the site +
mainly herbs that express distur- bance field herbs 0
mainly herbs that express distur- bance field herbs 0
2.2.2 In the landscape ecological infrastructure on farm
level + no real ecological infrastructure
− ecological infrastructure indige-
nous trees, but the plot is too small to speak from a real net-
work − 2.2.3 In time
full live cycles in semi-natural el- ements +
live cycles in field disturbed by ploughing −
live cycles disturbed by mowing +
2.3 Eco regulation suffered heavily from a pest −
no problems + no problems +
2.4 Animal welfare no livestock, but good living con-
ditions for wildlife ++ no livestock, medium living con-
ditions for wildlife + no livestock, medium living con-
ditions for wildlife + Total score
12 8
5
tional labour that ecological olive production requires Vassiliou, 1999.
Both farms are not heavily depending on external inputs. Farmers are purchasing the required manure
for fertilisation from the area. Legumes in the un- dergrowth provide the most required nitrogen. Some-
times, seeds for the cover crops are bought. The main external input to the agro-ecosystem is traps for the
olive fly protection. There is limited direct marketing. This is due to the
lack of organisation and experience by the farmers. Things would be worse if it was horticulture or staple
food instead of a highly appreciated additive to food, like oil.
88 D.J. Stobbelaar et al. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 77 2000 79–93
Table 2 Social scoring of the researched farms
Parameters I Farm ‘1’
Farm ‘2’ II, III 3 Sociology
3.1 Farm subsistence Organic olive production pays of which can be seen in the rapid growth of the number of organic farmers.
The productivity of organic olives kgha is as high as conventional, which means that the gross revenue is higher ++
3.2 Green economy not much external inputs technical autonomy. The environment is internalised in the higher prices for
organic products ++ 3.3 Regional subsistence
limited direct marketing. Producing for the export market, but only 10 of the olive = oil is transported minimise transport energy. The Cretan olive oil is a regional speciality 0
4 Economy 4.1 Social reproduction
many types of work labour diversity and satisfac- tion managed by a extended family without pos-
sibilities of splitting up through heritage. Regular training by CAEG education and awareness. Reg-
ular visits by groups dissemination ++ regular training by CAEG education and aware-
ness. Regular visits by groups dissemination +
4.2 Local participation no direct link with consumers −
no direct link with consumers − 4.3 Accessibility of
the landscape excursions, but no public roads through the farm,
nor ecotourism, selfpicking etc. 0 excursions, but no public roads through the farm,
nor ecotourism, selfpicking etc. 0 Total score
5 4
Because the oil is mainly not sold on the local mar- ket the energy used for transport is quite high. On the
other hand, only the end product oil is transported, which is less than 10 of the olive’s weight.
Olive oil is, in general, a speciality of the Mediter- ranean area. However, Cretan olive oil is of high qual-
ity 90 of the olive oil produced in Crete has the highest quality: extra virgin. Next to this, olive oil of
the area has specific organoleptic characteristics, e.g. aroma and taste. Cretan olive oil characteristics are
since antiquity appreciated by consumers all over the world. Olive oil produced by organic farmers of Mes-
sara is appreciated abroad as a speciality product of the area.
3.2.2. Social factors Organic farming provides more types of work, be-
cause of a more diversified farming system. This work, although it often is more and heavier work, could sup-
ply more satisfaction to the farmer and in that way could contribute to keeping the land populated. Per-
haps even more important is the fact that more labour per hectare is needed in organic agriculture. This also
might keep the land populated. Note that ecological olive production does overall not require more labour
inputs than the conventional intensive olive produc- tion Vassiliou, 1999. The large farm I is special
in this respect. The farm is owned by an extended family, instead of a small household. The farm will
not be split up by partible inheritance. This gives a solid base for sustainable land use in the sense of
long lasting management by providing the possibilities space to make a real effort for ecological network-
ing. This on its turn is an important basis for labour satisfaction.
There is no direct link to consumers that would like to participate either financially or physically to main-
tain the farms. This is to a large extend due to the fact that the group has recently been established dur-
ing 1994, and partly due to the fact that there is no tradition, as there is in the Northern European coun-
tries with e.g. ‘community based agriculture’. There happen to be some excursions for farmers and re-
tailers to the farms, but there are no public roads through the farms, nor ecotourism, self-picking, etc.;
there is no real direct contact of visitors with the land, which can establish an emotional bond with the
place.
As can be seen in Table 2, both farms do contribute to the quality of the social environment rather well,
which is largely due to the fact that they are organic farms: they provide labour, do more inspiring work,
they are better organised, accessible for visits, and the
D.J. Stobbelaar et al. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 77 2000 79–93 89
Table 3 Cultural scoring of the researched plots
Parameters I Farm ‘1’
II Hill plot of farm ‘2’ III Valley plot of farm ‘2’
6.1 Diversity 6.1.1 Reflection of the
different geomorphologic units in the land use
rocky outcrops are used as natural elements, shallow or steep areas are
used as meadows ++ one landuse type highstem olive
grove on one landunit slope ++ one landuse type lowstem olive
grove on one landunit. However, this landunit has the potential to
show much more crops 0 6.1.2 Reflection of biotic
diversity top of hill and steep slopes are not
planted with olives and show a high diversity of plants ++
olive trees with herb undergrowth +
olive trees with grass undergrowth. Ditch with wet species +
6.1.3 Differences between fields of a similar landuse
type different ages of plots, experiments
with fruit trees among the olives or trees along the plots +
hill plot differs from valley plot in varieties, age, etc +
valley plot differs from hill plot in varieties, age, etc +
6.1.4 Diversity of visual information in one field
tree crown layer, the stems, geo- morphologic forms and earth are
visible + with a low leguminous vegetation
as undergrowth, the visual informa- tion is rather good +
merging of undergrowth and the tree layer; they are not separately
visible and neither is the earth or shades −
6.2 Coherence 6.2.1 Coherence among
landscape elements the fragmented planting of Cy-
presses does not reflect a sustain- able landscape element like a brook
or a path. The labourers refuge is functionally build on the top of the
hill + no arrangements of elements 0
the fruit trees are arranged along the dry ditch. They emphasise a
line in the landscape +
6.3 Continuity 6.3.1 Cultural history
the terraces of former ages were levelled. The nut trees on the ter-
race slopes disappeared. The mixed farming system was left. There had
been a dominant abrupt change by converting from mixed farming
into the specialised organic farm- ing. Fires caused the disappearance
of other fruit trees and shrubs. Only the rare species on the road virgins
express continuity of their location and of management 0
the plot is still quite the same as in the past; perhaps more fieldherbs
instead of meadow herbs now ++ a drastic change from swamp to
olive groves took place. The past can not be recognised anymore 0
6.3.2 Visibility of natural processes
the season was visible in the road verges and the flowering olive trees
++ flowering herbs and trees ++
flowering herbs and trees ++ 6.3.3 Visibility of mainte-
nance cycles pruning and harvesting etc. but quit
simple system; could be more com- plex with undergrowth andor graz-
ing + pruning and harvesting etc. but quit
simple system; could be more com- plex with grazing +
pruning and harvesting etc. but quit simple system; could be more com-
plex with grazing + 6.3.4 Future sustainability
rather sustainable + perhaps too small to be really sus-
tainable in an area of conventional farmers toxic wind drift. Good
soil protection + perhaps too small to be really sus-
tainable in an area of conventional farmers toxic wind drift. Good
soil protection + Total score
11 11
6
consumers pay for green agriculture. The large farm is more progressive in the way it is socially organised,
run by an extended family as a whole and not divided among the hears.
3.3. The quality of the cultural environment Although the plots differ a lot in appearance rela-
tively, all three of them score rather well on the cul-
90 D.J. Stobbelaar et al. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 77 2000 79–93
tural parameters Table 3. This is partly related to the fact that the plots are situated in different parts of the
landscape. Their landscape appearance is subsequently also different. Nevertheless, plot III lacks behind in
the scoring because of its abrupt changes in the land- scape history and the weak reflection of the potential
landscape diversity. In contrast, plot I has the highest score because of a high landscape diversity on several
levels.
4. Discussion
